I think that is not the case. If F1 offered a better product, i.e., a more massive one, More money would be flowing into it borrowing (or raping) nothing to other series. See that a popular F1 eager to hire only the best of the best drivers and technical crew benefits other forms of motorsport in that they could become the main source of good F1 drivers. Sponsors would be looking desperately for good drivers everywhere, no matter if it is GP2, or the Australian national karting championship.

Car racing is car racing in F1 and everywhere else. A good driver in karting could make it to F1 after some training in powerful cars. This is the beauty of motorsports. Driving is easy. Having the guts and ability to handle a fast car is something that requires talent. If you were born with it then you can make it to the top. The point is that drivers do not need to have years of experience in "similar" rules. Good drivers are everywhere in the world waiting to be discovered. If F1 has the motivation to do it, it will happen. These drivers will be discovered. Under the current rules, you must be good friend of Bernie or bribe him sufficiently so that you can win anything.

So let me get this right, you want to make it harder to succeed in the sport and encourage just one or two teams to pull away from the rest of the field but you still think that makes F1 MORE attractive to sponsors? You think having LESS of a chance to win is going to bring new investment to the sport? How does that make any sense at all?

And no car racing is not car racing. Every format of racing requires different skills. Drivers who excelled when there was free testing, tire wars, bigger engines, etc...like Michael for example...haven't always been so successful when the cars are different, like now. You can't shake out the best from the good in the lesser series unless you know they can handle the F1 format. That's why GP2 is as close to F1 in format as possible. That's why GP3 updated their cars with much more power. That's why British F3 is dying. It used to be the major source of F1 talent, but now its becoming too expensive for teams to compete in, too expensive for kids to get seats, and they test seemingly endlessly. Its great if you can get really good over the course of a season with a ton of testing time to work on yourself and setting up your car, but you don't get the opportunity to do that in F1...hence fewer young drivers are participating in BF3, and instead choosing the more F1-like GP2/3/WSR/etc.

Not to mention having the best skills on track has never and will never be the most important thing in winning a championship in non-spec cars. There is a mental game involved, leadership, stamina, etc - those are things you can't see in a driver unless he's subjected to similar tests, via similar format series. On top of that you want such freedom of design that no amount of driving skill will overcome the spending prowess of the wealthiest teams anyway.

Readonly, rather than copy all that spiel again, tell me what was not good about the variety of winners at the start of last year?

The "variety of results" was excellent. Like a movie script. Oh wait, it was actually scripted. But it was a really nice one.

Asphalt_World wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

readonly wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

To the OP,NOPE. NEVER. NEVERNOPENEVER.

Why?

Because 99% of your proposal is hopeless.

I also think anyone who believes that the FIA should deliberately hamper drivers just to spice up the show is not a true fan of the sport, in fact they know nothing about sport at all.

asphalt_world runs and hides head behind pillow........

:lol:

My proposal may be hopeless with Bernie's ways, but good. If a new series (or an existing one) adopted it, it might just become the new pinnacle of motorsports. I think.

Hampering drivers to spice the show? What about DRS for the following driver only? Isn't that worse than being behind slower cars being able to improve your car's performance (or your driving) ? The latter produces High tech and guts drivers, the former just spoiled juniors pushing his toy's buttons.

ashley313 wrote:

readonly wrote:

I think that is not the case. If F1 offered a better product, i.e., a more massive one, More money would be flowing into it borrowing (or raping) nothing to other series. See that a popular F1 eager to hire only the best of the best drivers and technical crew benefits other forms of motorsport in that they could become the main source of good F1 drivers. Sponsors would be looking desperately for good drivers everywhere, no matter if it is GP2, or the Australian national karting championship.

Car racing is car racing in F1 and everywhere else. A good driver in karting could make it to F1 after some training in powerful cars. This is the beauty of motorsports. Driving is easy. Having the guts and ability to handle a fast car is something that requires talent. If you were born with it then you can make it to the top. The point is that drivers do not need to have years of experience in "similar" rules. Good drivers are everywhere in the world waiting to be discovered. If F1 has the motivation to do it, it will happen. These drivers will be discovered. Under the current rules, you must be good friend of Bernie or bribe him sufficiently so that you can win anything.

1.- So let me get this right, you want to make it harder to succeed in the sport and encourage just one or two teams to pull away from the rest of the field but you still think that makes F1 MORE attractive to sponsors? You think having LESS of a chance to win is going to bring new investment to the sport? How does that make any sense at all?

2.- And no car racing is not car racing. Every format of racing requires different skills. Drivers who excelled when there was free testing, tire wars, bigger engines, etc...like Michael for example...haven't always been so successful when the cars are different, like now. You can't shake out the best from the good in the lesser series unless you know they can handle the F1 format. That's why GP2 is as close to F1 in format as possible. That's why GP3 updated their cars with much more power. That's why British F3 is dying. It used to be the major source of F1 talent, but now its becoming too expensive for teams to compete in, too expensive for kids to get seats, and they test seemingly endlessly. Its great if you can get really good over the course of a season with a ton of testing time to work on yourself and setting up your car, but you don't get the opportunity to do that in F1...hence fewer young drivers are participating in BF3, and instead choosing the more F1-like GP2/3/WSR/etc.

3.- Not to mention having the best skills on track has never and will never be the most important thing in winning a championship in non-spec cars. There is a mental game involved, leadership, stamina, etc - those are things you can't see in a driver unless he's subjected to similar tests, via similar format series. On top of that you want such freedom of design that no amount of driving skill will overcome the spending prowess of the wealthiest teams anyway.

First question: Yes. More money. Let me explain (again?). I believe that Ferrari would develop their cars soon to be on top. They would be their own main sponsor because they are directly interested in being good at making cars. Fast cars. If they didn't, their reputation may suffer and Ferrari cars would not be seen as the best fast car one can get. They must enter the tech race seriously and they have everything in their hands to be successful: experience, reputation, money, etc. The investment would be self paid. Remember that new technology does not always imply higher costs, it may also be a development that saves money keeping performance good.McLaren may be the second team that is very interested in fighting for the championship, thus, injecting money in high tech. They are similar to Ferrari in their interests. They build fast cars and sell them. Their reputation as good car makers is also at stake. And they also have the know how to compete (for real).Suppose there are no other big teams. Why should a smaller team be interested in being third all the time? To make money. If, for instance, this third team is Williams, they could be taken as good car makers. Even if they don't sell road cars. They can beat everyone else and be third with a budget that is maybe 1/4 of Ferrari's and maybe half of Mercedes'. This would give Williams a great chance to get quite good sponsors willing to be just behind the top teams. And if Williams is really better than Ferrari, he will gradually convince sponsors of increasing their participation with the hope to close the gap and eventually end some races ahead of the top teams --- with much less money than them. The same would happen at lower levels. Teams that get good results with little money, attract sponsors. Those who don't, lose them. Every team is involved in a continuous fight to get sponsors and every one does it at its own level. The difference would be that money would be used for real tech development and not to bribe Bernie.

Second question: I understand your logic. Since F1 does not require driver to drive cars using new technologies, but old, lower spec series can supply driver to F1. OK, but that is not my concept of pinnacle of motorsports. F1 used to have drivers with guts to face new situations, take some risks, and succeed. Stories where someone took a car to a race featuring some strange device that surprised everyone and then at the race everyone was able to see if that worked or not. When it dit, next race many had already something similar in their cars. This is how it should be, I think. And I think also the vast majority of viewers do think the same. The best driver is, for me, the one that can compete in that situation, taking the most out of his available equipment and daring to use something else too. Of course, lower formulae can't afford spending like that but that is their problem. Anyway, F1 would get its drivers from somewhere and this somewhere may be one racing series (whatever the reason is) or many. Even karting could be this majoritary source of talent. Who knows? It really doesn't matter. I think lower formulae will try to be similar to F1 if they want to become the main source of drivers. But they don't need to do it. They can survive as a racing series with its own characteristics.

Third question: You are right. If we had a spec series we would not have those skills involved. This is why the pinnacle of motorsports should NOT be a spec series but the exact opposite. Otherwise, there is allways an emply space to be filled. I also know that some technological advantages could be unbeatable even with the best driving skill, but that is not a problem. F1 is not just a driving competition, spec series are. Suppose there is something that makes cars very fast but its cost is so high that only Ferrari and McLaren have it. This technology becomes the goal of every team. If only they had that, they could beat the top teams. This would become a temptation for sponsors who really want to be there winning. If they consider it is worth (due to evidence) they might try it once. It is a matter of benefit/cost relation, but given the evidence they might do it. If not, Ferrari and McLaren will surely start working in ways to have this technology at lower costs. Eventually this technology would either be less expensive or dropped doue to a bad benefit/cost relation for the teams that use it. Maybe they are able to substitute it for some other thing that produces the speed with lower costs. Research will always be good not only for racing teams but also for human kind.

2 - I did NOT say I wanted a spec series. The teams have ALWAYS had regulations restricting their work. If they hadn't we'd have seen far more power even back in the 1950s than was used in the actual races. NEVER has F1 been a series in which any car can simply show up and attempt to qualify. Otherwise we'd have idiots with Corsas showing up at every event and making a mockery of Friday practice.

While I would like the regulations to be less complex and restrictive, I don't think going anywhere near as far as you have is viable or sustainable.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

If Ferrari and McLaren can't afford to fund themselves now, how are they going to fund themselves when there is no limit to development? And Ferrari doesn't race to sell cars, they sell cars to race. Why would sponsors want to fund a team that is forever 3rd? You get involved with a team in hopes that it can do better and get noticed. Not finish in the same place all the time. Further, who is going to show up to watch a sport where the top three places are GUARANTEED, and determined by MONEY not design or skill? If nobody wants to watch it, nobody wants to invest in it either.

How do you select drivers from karting to go straight to F1 if karting is nothing like your F1? What may make for a winning kart racer will not guarantee a winning F1 driver, in ANY version of F1 that doesn't involve go karts. You HAVE to have lesser series for people to learn in. Even the guys at the beginning had experience in other racing that was relevant to Grand Prix racing either in format or in cars. It was a little different back then because grand prix cars had many uses - you could race them in many different formats. Cars dictated by your format wouldn't be able to race anywhere else. So you'll end up with some mighty fast tricked out Ferrari, paid for by Ferrari (who is currently screaming for cost cutting btw) that is 20 seconds faster than the McLaren (paid for by McLaren), and driven by...the Italian karting champion who has never sat in something as fast, sensitive, or scary as an 'F1" car developed with no budget and no limits. Yeah, that will be super safe.

Sponsors don't understand racing. THey dont understand "if we only had this, we'd win". It doesn't work that way. They have boards who decide their level of involvement ahead of time. Most of the time you cant call them up mid season and ask for more because you've already spent all their money. You'd look ridiculous.

No designer with near unlimited development opportunity bothers with making something cost effective, they just make it fast. Like racers only want to win, designers only want to win too.

And again, if the budget determines the finishing order, as you've confirmed it likely would, it defeats the purpose of having good drivers. You say you want to emphasize driving skill, but your formula negates it 100%.

2 - I did NOT say I wanted a spec series. The teams have ALWAYS had regulations restricting their work. If they hadn't we'd have seen far more power even back in the 1950s than was used in the actual races. NEVER has F1 been a series in which any car can simply show up and attempt to qualify. Otherwise we'd have idiots with Corsas showing up at every event and making a mockery of Friday practice.

While I would like the regulations to be less complex and restrictive, I don't think going anywhere near as far as you have is viable or sustainable.

1.- Do you believe Pastor Maldonado suddenly got the pace to qualify 2nd (and then promoted to 1st) exactly at Frank Williams' birthday and win the race just after he had been nowhere in the season and then get back to his usual place for the next race is possible without some kind of manipulation ? Don't you think that rules are just ready to do this manipulation ?

2.- In the beginnings of F1, when GP races where held without a world championship, it was pretty much like that. You could enter the race and see what happens. Obviously, in a bad car you had no chance to win, but you had the joy of racing. If it could be more like that it would be good for F1. Parhaps there should still be some restrictions but minimal. Only enough to reduce participation to a reasonable number of cars. The Corsas could be avoided easily. The idea is that, if you already have a fast car (LMP1, an old F1, Indy car, etc) you can try and qualify for a GP. It may be only one but it would be really refreshing to see that. Even if an idiot with his corsa makes it to the friday sessions it would be nice and attractive. Many people will look at it and collect some money to do the same. Then, only the best would make it right and the "stupid" ones would get out. It is a matter of generating motivation for many and not just the usual ones.

I think freedom is viable and sustainable. Why don't you ? How far would you go on freeing tech development ?

ashley313 wrote:

If Ferrari and McLaren can't afford to fund themselves now, how are they going to fund themselves when there is no limit to development? And Ferrari doesn't race to sell cars, they sell cars to race. Why would sponsors want to fund a team that is forever 3rd? You get involved with a team in hopes that it can do better and get noticed. Not finish in the same place all the time. Further, who is going to show up to watch a sport where the top three places are GUARANTEED, and determined by MONEY not design or skill? If nobody wants to watch it, nobody wants to invest in it either.

How do you select drivers from karting to go straight to F1 if karting is nothing like your F1? What may make for a winning kart racer will not guarantee a winning F1 driver, in ANY version of F1 that doesn't involve go karts. You HAVE to have lesser series for people to learn in. Even the guys at the beginning had experience in other racing that was relevant to Grand Prix racing either in format or in cars. It was a little different back then because grand prix cars had many uses - you could race them in many different formats. Cars dictated by your format wouldn't be able to race anywhere else. So you'll end up with some mighty fast tricked out Ferrari, paid for by Ferrari (who is currently screaming for cost cutting btw) that is 20 seconds faster than the McLaren (paid for by McLaren), and driven by...the Italian karting champion who has never sat in something as fast, sensitive, or scary as an 'F1" car developed with no budget and no limits. Yeah, that will be super safe.

Sponsors don't understand racing. THey dont understand "if we only had this, we'd win". It doesn't work that way. They have boards who decide their level of involvement ahead of time. Most of the time you cant call them up mid season and ask for more because you've already spent all their money. You'd look ridiculous.

No designer with near unlimited development opportunity bothers with making something cost effective, they just make it fast. Like racers only want to win, designers only want to win too.

And again, if the budget determines the finishing order, as you've confirmed it likely would, it defeats the purpose of having good drivers. You say you want to emphasize driving skill, but your formula negates it 100%.

Ferrari and anyone else can keep on spending just the same they do now. They would be free to spend more and not forced to do so. They could just go on with their operations as they are. Whenever they find more money they could develop their cars.

It is a virtuous cycle: Ferrari sells cars (good cars) to get some good revenue. If their cars were not good they would have to sell them cheapper. In order to make good cars they need to develop technology and test it. Being in F1 gives them the chance to increase their experience and knowledge that is surely useful to make better cars. If they lear how to make better cars, they will surely get more revenue from selling them. This money can then be used to develop more tech and so on. Not to mention that being exposed in F1 lets people know about them and thus increase their sales.

Sponsors look for exposure. Being third could be very good for some, if that is achieved with little money. Sponsors decide based on efficiency. If they put X amount of money they expect to receive more due to the effect that publicity has in their sales. Winning is not the only way to achieve this. See how Marussia has several sponsors. There is always a sponsor that could be happy with third place in the championship. It may be that fourth place is very close to third and then sponsors will find ways to move up one place by adding money to that fourth place.

You should see that most people would be interested in watching even if the top three are always the same. I am sure that the battle for fourth would be really interesting too. A lot of "movement" would be taking place all the time. New cars, New tech, new drivers, etc. If the driver that ends first all the time does not improve, second will start closing the gap. The same for third, etc. It is that movement what will make us keep on looking at what is happenning. Point 2.3.3.3.1 guarrantees the best will have to show his skills and /or his car's potential when overtaking everyone else to win the race. Second place will always have the chance to delay being overtaken by the first place (who is always behind at the start). Even if the result is always the same it would be very interesting. If the result is not the same, i.e. second is able to hold first behind, means that he has finally made the necessary changes and this would be also very interesting. I think more people will want to watch than now.

Results would be a consequence of design and/or skill. Money is used for car design. If you have a super car, then skill might not be really important. But then, anyone could drive that car to win, so, the salary of that driver would certainly drop dramaticallly. This drop could be so big that this driver would have to pay for his seat. In this way the team saves money and can use it to do more research which is good. But you know that there are two (and could be more than two in the proposed system) equal cars. The difference between these two cars' results depend on driver skill. The same happens when two cars perform very similarly. If one driver constantly beats the other in equal or similar cars, means that this driver has better skills. The better driver can get paid more, the worse one must pay more.

A karting driver can be really very good but has no money to race at a higher level. See the Kimi case. How much did it take for him to jums from karting to F1? very little. Lower formula is good because driver get more experience, but talent does not need them to exist. Great drivers are all over the world and have not been discovered. They need a chance. A system like this would put pressure on teams to select drivers from anywhere. Many would give them a chance to test and, if they get impressed, they could hire them. These drivers would be initially very cheap so teams have also this motivation. Expensive drivers would have to lower their salary just to keep their seats. Of course, the best drivers could still keep a decent salary while the worst would have to pay.

When a driver has a car 20 secs faster than anyone else then he does not have to really race the car. He can just cruise to the finish line without exposing to an accident. But as said, this would not be the case. He would have some similar cars to beat, and so, he can't be just any driver. He must show skill.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous you look. You should talk to your sponsors and convince then (whenever it is appropriate) to give you more money. If you know that you can move up in the standings with just an extra million, you must explain in any way you can to your potential sponsor and see if they are willing to "buy" that improvement. Then you MUST deliver. If you do, they will be happy and the next time you find a way to improve your car and you know the price, they might agree again.

Designers must restrict their ideas to the available budget. Any engineers knows this. You can be creative but there is always the question of how much will it cost. Only cost effective solutions exist in real life.

Budget does not define the finishing order, but it helps. Driver skill is still needed as I have just explained. The only case when skill is not needed is when one driver, and only one, has a much better car than the rest. The rest must use their skill to get closer to a race win.

Where do you think "movement" - new tech and new cars as you say - comes from? MONEYYYYY. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between speed, development, and cash, and how that relationship is affected by the technical regulations. You have an even bigger lack of understanding of attracting investment and ROI. All I can suggest is having a good comprehensive study of the history of grand prix racing, including how it has fit into the motorsport world globally. I think you're forgetting that grand prix racing started as a hobby, not a business. You can thank the Germans for bringing professionalism to the sport and doing away with any place in it for "the joy of racing" in terms of manufacturers.

2 - I did NOT say I wanted a spec series. The teams have ALWAYS had regulations restricting their work. If they hadn't we'd have seen far more power even back in the 1950s than was used in the actual races. NEVER has F1 been a series in which any car can simply show up and attempt to qualify. Otherwise we'd have idiots with Corsas showing up at every event and making a mockery of Friday practice.

While I would like the regulations to be less complex and restrictive, I don't think going anywhere near as far as you have is viable or sustainable.

1.- Do you believe Pastor Maldonado suddenly got the pace to qualify 2nd (and then promoted to 1st) exactly at Frank Williams' birthday and win the race just after he had been nowhere in the season and then get back to his usual place for the next race is possible without some kind of manipulation ? Don't you think that rules are just ready to do this manipulation ?

2.- In the beginnings of F1, when GP races where held without a world championship, it was pretty much like that. You could enter the race and see what happens. Obviously, in a bad car you had no chance to win, but you had the joy of racing. If it could be more like that it would be good for F1. Parhaps there should still be some restrictions but minimal. Only enough to reduce participation to a reasonable number of cars. The Corsas could be avoided easily. The idea is that, if you already have a fast car (LMP1, an old F1, Indy car, etc) you can try and qualify for a GP. It may be only one but it would be really refreshing to see that. Even if an idiot with his corsa makes it to the friday sessions it would be nice and attractive. Many people will look at it and collect some money to do the same. Then, only the best would make it right and the "stupid" ones would get out. It is a matter of generating motivation for many and not just the usual ones.

I think freedom is viable and sustainable. Why don't you ? How far would you go on freeing tech development ?

1 - Yes. The Williams had pace on certain tracks. He was faster than Alonso in Melbourne until he tried too hard to get past.

2 - Times have changed considerably since then, and tech has advanced by an awful lot. That formula wouldn't survive today.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

Where do you think "movement" - new tech and new cars as you say - comes from? MONEYYYYY. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between speed, development, and cash, and how that relationship is affected by the technical regulations. You have an even bigger lack of understanding of attracting investment and ROI. All I can suggest is having a good comprehensive study of the history of grand prix racing, including how it has fit into the motorsport world globally. I think you're forgetting that grand prix racing started as a hobby, not a business. You can thank the Germans for bringing professionalism to the sport and doing away with any place in it for "the joy of racing" in terms of manufacturers.

Could you please tell me what are my mistakes? And no, I don't forget that F1 started as a hobby and that the germans introduced professionalism and a lot of money into F1. Why do you think so?

Tufty wrote:

1 - Yes. The Williams had pace on certain tracks. He was faster than Alonso in Melbourne until he tried too hard to get past.

2 - Times have changed considerably since then, and tech has advanced by an awful lot. That formula wouldn't survive today.

They might have tried to gift Williams another good result or win but it didn't happen. The point is that it is possible to cheat with ease. They can ask Pirelli to build a set of good tyres but painted as if they were bad and give it to the selected team. Since the difference between cars is minimal, this advantage is crucial. There are also other ways to cheat.

If they do cheat or not does not matter. Transparency is what is needed in any kind of competition. I think.

Anyway, if F1 was this bent, people like Briatore would have blown the conspiracy wide open after Crashgate, as it would have reduced coverage of Singapore.

If you honestly believe F1 is so strongly based around scripted events, you're watching the wrong sport and I have nothing more to add to such a ridiculous thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore any part of your message. Here is my response to point 2: I believe that formula WOULD survive. The only way it could die is if the FIA wants to kill it. In that case, the formula would have to fight against everyone in motorsports and create a breakaway motorsport association. It might also survive in this conditions but it would be harder. On the contrary, if the FIA approved it, it could really become very popular. It would have all the elements that made F1 popular in its early years. Either as an F1 evolution or as a stand alone series it has potential, I think.

I don't get what you meant about briatore, sorry.

Well, scripting results is the worst part of today's F1 and I really hate that. I hate rules that open that possibility instead of rules that make things more transparent for everyone. I only wish someone comes with a real solution to this big problem. Don't you?

ashley313 wrote:

I've already explained what I think your mistakes are.

But I have also answered.

Then you said that you think that I have a "fundamental lack of understanding" of something. So I wish you could enlighten me with your explanations. At least please give me some link to a good reading. Thanks.

Formula One didnt start as a 'hobby'. What makes you think that? Sure, Mercedes introduced a higher level of organisation and structure into what was expected of teams, but Maserati, Ferrari, Talbot and Alfa Romeo (though the latter's management left much to be desired before and after 1950) all entered the 1950 World Championship with the intention of competing professionally. Formula One was much a hobby to those teams as it is to the teams we have now.

Anyway, if F1 was this bent, people like Briatore would have blown the conspiracy wide open after Crashgate, as it would have reduced coverage of Singapore.

If you honestly believe F1 is so strongly based around scripted events, you're watching the wrong sport and I have nothing more to add to such a ridiculous thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore any part of your message. Here is my response to point 2: I believe that formula WOULD survive. The only way it could die is if the FIA wants to kill it. In that case, the formula would have to fight against everyone in motorsports and create a breakaway motorsport association. It might also survive in this conditions but it would be harder. On the contrary, if the FIA approved it, it could really become very popular. It would have all the elements that made F1 popular in its early years. Either as an F1 evolution or as a stand alone series it has potential, I think.

I don't get what you meant about briatore, sorry.

Well, scripting results is the worst part of today's F1 and I really hate that. I hate rules that open that possibility instead of rules that make things more transparent for everyone. I only wish someone comes with a real solution to this big problem. Don't you?

ashley313 wrote:

I've already explained what I think your mistakes are.

But I have also answered.

Then you said that you think that I have a "fundamental lack of understanding" of something. So I wish you could enlighten me with your explanations. At least please give me some link to a good reading. Thanks.

And your answers dont make any sense. So all I can assume is that you don't understand how the world of professional motorsport fits together. Everything you say is contradictory of itself.

Anyway, if F1 was this bent, people like Briatore would have blown the conspiracy wide open after Crashgate, as it would have reduced coverage of Singapore.

If you honestly believe F1 is so strongly based around scripted events, you're watching the wrong sport and I have nothing more to add to such a ridiculous thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore any part of your message. Here is my response to point 2: I believe that formula WOULD survive. The only way it could die is if the FIA wants to kill it. In that case, the formula would have to fight against everyone in motorsports and create a breakaway motorsport association. It might also survive in this conditions but it would be harder. On the contrary, if the FIA approved it, it could really become very popular. It would have all the elements that made F1 popular in its early years. Either as an F1 evolution or as a stand alone series it has potential, I think.

I don't get what you meant about briatore, sorry.

Well, scripting results is the worst part of today's F1 and I really hate that. I hate rules that open that possibility instead of rules that make things more transparent for everyone. I only wish someone comes with a real solution to this big problem. Don't you?

Why would the formula survive? Name me a company who would be happy to sponsor the second-best team, while knowing that one sponsor of the lead team has more money invested to the point where the gap is impossible to bridge and the richest team wins every year? That's how it used to work, and with freer regulations it would work even more like that. Nobody wants to watch a whitewash, look how many people turned off during the Schumacher era.

What I mean by the Briatore example, is that he was tiddled off that he was banned from F1. If he wasn't the only one manipulating the results, he'd have made it blindingly clear when he was being taken to the WMSC because it would have taken the bad press off him and placed it square at the door of the FIA. Oh, but he didn't do that. Why? Because F1 isn't scripted. If it was there wouldn't be crashes like Perez' in Monaco 2011 or Kubica's in 2007, both incidents where we thought for a while that things could be a whole lot more serious than they are. Go back to 2001. The "script" killed Graham Beveridge. Really? You think the FIA indulged in institutional murder?

And finally, THERE IS NO SCRIPT. Believing there is makes you look even more stupid than your regulations do, and underneath it all I don't think you're stupid at all, so why give that impression? You just remind me of the idiot on YouTube who spends 5 or 6 videos explaining how the FIA murdered Senna. Sorry, but no. It's utter bullshit.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

Formula One didnt start as a 'hobby'. What makes you think that? Sure, Mercedes introduced a higher level of organisation and structure into what was expected of teams, but Maserati, Ferrari, Talbot and Alfa Romeo (though the latter's management left much to be desired before and after 1950) all entered the 1950 World Championship with the intention of competing professionally. Formula One was much a hobby to those teams as it is to the teams we have now.

ashley313 should answer you since she seems to be interested in proving something with this.

ashley313 wrote:

readonly wrote:

ashley313 wrote:

I've already explained what I think your mistakes are.

But I have also answered.

Then you said that you think that I have a "fundamental lack of understanding" of something. So I wish you could enlighten me with your explanations. At least please give me some link to a good reading. Thanks.

And your answers dont make any sense. So all I can assume is that you don't understand how the world of professional motorsport fits together. Everything you say is contradictory of itself.

"lack of understanding", "don't make any sense", "everything is contradictory". OK, you think that, so be it. I obviously do not agree. Why would you say that? What is the exact mistake I make? Could you please mention at least one?

Tufty wrote:

readonly wrote:

Tufty wrote:

Interesting that you ignore my second point.

Anyway, if F1 was this bent, people like Briatore would have blown the conspiracy wide open after Crashgate, as it would have reduced coverage of Singapore.

If you honestly believe F1 is so strongly based around scripted events, you're watching the wrong sport and I have nothing more to add to such a ridiculous thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore any part of your message. Here is my response to point 2: I believe that formula WOULD survive. The only way it could die is if the FIA wants to kill it. In that case, the formula would have to fight against everyone in motorsports and create a breakaway motorsport association. It might also survive in this conditions but it would be harder. On the contrary, if the FIA approved it, it could really become very popular. It would have all the elements that made F1 popular in its early years. Either as an F1 evolution or as a stand alone series it has potential, I think.

I don't get what you meant about briatore, sorry.

Well, scripting results is the worst part of today's F1 and I really hate that. I hate rules that open that possibility instead of rules that make things more transparent for everyone. I only wish someone comes with a real solution to this big problem. Don't you?

Why would the formula survive? Name me a company who would be happy to sponsor the second-best team, while knowing that one sponsor of the lead team has more money invested to the point where the gap is impossible to bridge and the richest team wins every year? That's how it used to work, and with freer regulations it would work even more like that. Nobody wants to watch a whitewash, look how many people turned off during the Schumacher era.

What I mean by the Briatore example, is that he was tiddled off that he was banned from F1. If he wasn't the only one manipulating the results, he'd have made it blindingly clear when he was being taken to the WMSC because it would have taken the bad press off him and placed it square at the door of the FIA. Oh, but he didn't do that. Why? Because F1 isn't scripted. If it was there wouldn't be crashes like Perez' in Monaco 2011 or Kubica's in 2007, both incidents where we thought for a while that things could be a whole lot more serious than they are. Go back to 2001. The "script" killed Graham Beveridge. Really? You think the FIA indulged in institutional murder?

And finally, THERE IS NO SCRIPT. Believing there is makes you look even more stupid than your regulations do, and underneath it all I don't think you're stupid at all, so why give that impression? You just remind me of the idiot on YouTube who spends 5 or 6 videos explaining how the FIA murdered Senna. Sorry, but no. It's utter bullshit.

A lot of companies woud be happy to see their name broadcasted to the whole world being the 2nd best technology developer in the world. If there is a dominant team it is because they are doing the best job which is to create the best car they can by doing research, which is just fare. Being second to the best in the world is not bad. Being ahead of other 24 cars is just fine for marketing a brand. Of course some brands can get more from this than others.

Even in the case of a whitewash as you say, F1 would be interesting for many (maybe not you) because this super car would provide a very good show every race. It would have to overtake everyone else and everyone else would have the chance to defend (or delay) as much as they can their position. Variations from race to race would be very interesting to follow. This is, how easy was it for the super car to win? Are the others getting closer to them? What will the rest do now? Who is helping them to improve? Who is making progess? Who takes more risks? etc. These are the things that we, the true F1 fans, want to follow.

What I mean by scripted isn't that everything is fake. I see that drivers are unaware of the script and so they do drive as fast as they can. They are also being cheatted. This is why we see sometines accidents. Maybe Briatore didn't speak because he is not part of those who decide things (the script). He tried to cheat against the real powers in F1 independently and so he was punished. This does not mean there is no script in F1, it just means he is not with them (and does not know it for sure). He could also have been promised he could return to F1 in the future if he stayed silent (millions at stake here). There are some other possibililties than the one you say. When I say that F1 is scripted I mean that Bernie is able to give certain advantages to certain teams very easily with the current rules, then, he can let the game play and see that the result is what he expected. He can be bribed to "produce" a result and also he can secretly bet millions and win whenever he wants. The rules are set for this.

I don't need to elaborate more. Your "plans" are bullshit. They don't make sense and they are make believe at best. Either you are a seriously deluded individual when it comes to how F1 works or you are a wind up merchant.

Trust me guys. It doesn't matter how you go about pointing out why his idea is useless, he's like a dog with a bone.

This must be the third time he's tried to revolutionise the sport hoping perhaps that the latest crowd on the forum will like his ideas. So far it's 3-0 against him.

There's nothing wrong offering these ideas, don't forget. Sometimes good ones come along and usually they captivate the imaginations of other members for a short while. The problem with this one was its immense economic unfeasability (is that not a word?) and its creator's refusal to accept advice. Perhaps the idea would benefit from the OP taking some criticism onboard and proposing an amended idea later on.

Trust me guys. It doesn't matter how you go about pointing out why his idea is useless, he's like a dog with a bone.

This must be the third time he's tried to revolutionise the sport hoping perhaps that the latest crowd on the forum will like his ideas. So far it's 3-0 against him.

There's nothing wrong offering these ideas, don't forget. Sometimes good ones come along and usually they captivate the imaginations of other members for a short while. The problem with this one was its immense economic unfeasability (is that not a word?) and its creator's refusal to accept advice. Perhaps the idea would benefit from the OP taking some criticism onboard and proposing an amended idea later on.

I have no problem with new ideas, it's just that this is the third time, possibly even the fourth time he has attempted to reinvent something that does not need reinventing.